Thread: Liberty

My first question would be: why automatically construct a state? You may disagree, but if one is attempting to set up a "libertopia," constructing a state is a step in the wrong direction (you don't have to reply to this, it's just one of my "convictions").

I don't understand what you mean. Anarchy is obviously unstable, as there is no mechanism to stop people forming their own states. So, the only question we should be asking is, given that a state does form, what is the ideal way it should look? I don't believe in total democracy because that can lead to people suppressing minorities for their own advantage (legalizing slavery of black people for instance); there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand. The U.S. constitution is not a 'strong and applicable' constitution to quote my first post, because its vagueness allowed for the passing of the aforementioned suppressive laws.

A state is necessitated for the exact reasons I delineated. If there is a police force, a health service, education, and other things, paid for by taxes, then there is a state, and I explained why I think those things are logical consequences of the common liberal axiom.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand what you mean. Anarchy is obviously unstable, as there is no mechanism to stop people forming their own states. So, the only question we should be asking is, given that a state does form, what is the ideal way it should look? I don't believe in total democracy because that can lead to people suppressing minorities for their own advantage (legalizing slavery of black people for instance); there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand. The U.S. constitution is not a 'strong and applicable' constitution to quote my first post, because its vagueness allowed for the passing of the aforementioned suppressive laws.

A state is necessitated for the exact reasons I delineated. If there is a police force, a health service, education, and other things, paid for by taxes, then there is a state, and I explained why I think those things are logical consequences of the common liberal axiom.

I think I should have phrased my question like this: What makes a state a good option for establishing and maintaining liberty? Is it only because anarchy is unstable (something I disagree with, but that may be due to different definitions), or is it that the state has something a stateless "system" doesn't?

Your statement about people forming their own states reminds me of something. In this state you've hypothesized, are people allowed to not participate in such a system? For example, if you have a population of one-hundred people, and one (or more) of them does not want to be part of it (i.e. doesn't want to be considered part of the state; citizens if you will), would they be taxed anyway or would they be allowed to live tax-free (probably with the condition that they wouldn't gain access to state-sponsored services)? Would they, in essence, be left alone? If people want to create their own state for whatever reason, would they be able to?

I don't get how this is right-wing at all. If anything I would say left-wing.

I disagree about education. It should be paid for in taxes. You say selfishness is what advances our civilisation. I say bullshit.
Education and creating new technology does.

Even with a sponsored program, many people will be hesitant to commit owing $100,000 to the government.
I'm in that position right now coz I don't know whether I will want to stay on the same path of education.
That $100,000 is selfishness. Universities could run at a hundredth of that admittance cost. Paying their staff quite well.

Selfishness also encourages people to not share their ideas.

Think about if companies were not run for tonnes of profit, but mostly to help people live better lives and advance our understanding of the universe.

This would mean the best minds of our time could get together, even if they didn't work for the same company, and solve problems together.

Selfishness doesn't lead to any good. Of course we'll always have some selfishness, and that is fundamentally what motivates us to do anything, but I'm
pretending these selfish motives are altruistic.

It's kinda funny actually that you say you believe in altruism, but think selfishness will advance our society.
While I believe that selfishness is the basis for all our actions, but non selfishness will advance our society.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think I should have phrased my question like this: What makes a state a good option for establishing and maintaining liberty? Is it only because anarchy is unstable (something I disagree with, but that may be due to different definitions), or is it that the state has something a stateless "system" doesn't?

To briefly pick up on the anarchy point: as far as I can tell, in a lawless country where people are at total liberty to do absolutely anything, there is nothing preventing people creating a 'state' (even if it's just something like a village with everybody in the village supporting a few dedicated 'policemen'); and as people will inevitably do that, I can see no way in which anarchy is a viable society. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

I should point out that liberty was not my overruling principle. My overruling principles are the right to life, etcetera. The relevant (contrived) analogous situation is one in which an innocent person is trapped in a burning building. Standing watching is an affluent man with a mobile phone, who either can't be bothered to, or doesn't want to pay for, the cost of calling the fire brigade. The question is, is it moral to compel that man by force to make the call? I think the only human answer is 'yes'. There are some rights which take precedence over the right to an inviolate free will.

As to whether a state is pragmatic; can you suggest any other mechanisms, to give me something to work with? It almost seems to me that, ipso facto, any mechanism protecting liberty and rights is a state.

Your statement about people forming their own states reminds me of something. In this state you've hypothesized, are people allowed to not participate in such a system? For example, if you have a population of one-hundred people, and one (or more) of them does not want to be part of it (i.e. doesn't want to be considered part of the state; citizens if you will), would they be taxed anyway or would they be allowed to live tax-free (probably with the condition that they wouldn't gain access to state-sponsored services)? Would they, in essence, be left alone? If people want to create their own state for whatever reason, would they be able to?

It's things like this that make me feel like resorting to BLARG. Perhaps humans cannot force consistent meaning onto the universe.

What is the sphere of a state? Does it necessarily include everybody on Earth? I wasn't really picturing anything centralised.

But for now I'll stick to my guns. I'll say yes, he'd be taxed; see the above analogy. It's worth bearing in mind two things. Firstly, in my model, disregarding bureaucratic inefficiencies and the like, every penny taxed is going towards providing somebody's inalienable rights, and so the analogy is not wrong. If enough people are contributing via altruism, he won't even be taxed (also see my final few paragraphs about minimal expenses). Secondly, in my model, he can't 'declare himself out', because it works both ways: if this man were ill, or attacked, my state still has a duty to pay for his protection (although if he then refused medical treatment for instance, he is of course at liberty to do that, as we're effectively talking about suicide).

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't get how this is right-wing at all. If anything I would say left-wing.

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

I disagree about education. It should be paid for in taxes. You say selfishness is what advances our civilisation. I say bullshit.
Education and creating new technology does.

You ignore my entire point though, which is about the fundamental moral basis. You are threatening people with imprisonment for not paying for your education and your lofty ideals. Please respond to this.

Even with a sponsored program, many people will be hesitant to commit owing $100,000 to the government.

I don't understand why you think you'd owe it to the government. You owe it to the university. All the government does is ensure there is a fair loan system that doesn't dissuade poor people from applying.

I'm in that position right now coz I don't know whether I will want to stay on the same path of education.
That $100,000 is selfishness. Universities could run at a hundredth of that admittance cost. Paying their staff quite well.

Why do you think they're obliged to you? Perhaps I consider myself an excellent pedagogue and want to set up a private 'university'. You're going to force me to accept $1,000? What claim do you have on me, and my personal enterprises? If people think I'm charging too much, let them go elsewhere.

Selfishness also encourages people to not share their ideas.

Erm no. Why do you even think this? Selfishness encourages people to develop their ideas, often putting huge amounts of money and time into them, and sell them. Knowing that your idea does not remain yours, and that you will get zero personal benefit from it, is what encourages people to not strive to achieve their ideas. All you have to do is consider history, and the products of the entrepreneurial drive of communist Russia compared to industrial Germany. Just think of all the amazing things those Ruskies came up with, for the common good. Like I say, I'm an altruist, but a pragmatist. This state isn't for me; if I made a lot of money, I'd donate almost all of my profits to charitable enterprises (such as education). But I know I'm a special case, and that the best results for all come from harnessing a selfish desire to achieve and attain.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

I'm Australian. But seeing as that is basically the accepted definition now. Even if it wasn't the original definition. I'll stick by it. But this is pretty much besides the point of the discussion. So I'm not going to argue it any further.

Originally Posted by Xei

You ignore my entire point though, which is about the fundamental moral basis. You are threatening people with imprisonment for not paying for your education and your lofty ideals. Please respond to this.

And you are saying everyone has to pay taxes. Why is this?
I am saying that people should pay for everyone's education because it improves society as a whole and helps us advance and have better lives. Education is obviously the key to everything we have now in this society, making people suffer for it is fucking insane.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand why you think you'd owe it to the government. You owe it to the university. All the government does is ensure there is a fair loan system that doesn't dissuade poor people from applying.

Oh, well, right now in Aus the government pays for it and you pay them back. I just assumed your state would do the same. Didn't really think about it.

But I don't know how the university owner/s would pay for everything for the first 4 years or so while people get their degrees, when they're doing everything for free, paying staff and will only get slow return for years after that.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you think they're obliged to you? Perhaps I consider myself an excellent pedagogue and want to set up a private 'university'. You're going to force me to accept $1,000? What claim do you have on me, and my personal enterprises? If people think I'm charging too much, let them go elsewhere.

The problem is, people do not have anywhere else to go. Every university charges pretty much identical prices.
And there obviously wouldn't be any tax funded universities in your system.

Originally Posted by Xei

Erm no. Why do you even think this? Selfishness encourages people to develop their ideas, often putting huge amounts of money and time into them, and sell them. Knowing that your idea does not remain yours, and that you will get zero personal benefit from it, is what encourages people to not strive to achieve their ideas. All you have to do is consider history, and the products of the entrepreneurial drive of communist Russia compared to industrial Germany. Just think of all the amazing things those Ruskies came up with, for the common good. Like I say, I'm an altruist, but a pragmatist. This state isn't for me; if I made a lot of money, I'd donate almost all of my profits to charitable enterprises (such as education). But I know I'm a special case, and that the best results for all come from harnessing a selfish desire to achieve and attain.

But of course you still gain, because everyone gains.
You gain by advancing your entire civilisation.
If you keep your idea under copyright and all that rubbish, people have to reinvent the wheel just to get another better product out.

It's just so obvious that selfishness does no good. Take Microsoft for example.
They owned basically the only OS for quite a while. Of course there are minority ones, but basically everybody used Windows.
If there was no copyright on it, and people were free to change it and use parts of their source code, there would be much better OS's much more quickly.

Assume they are doing this for the betterment of civilisation because this helps people use computers more efficiently which helps us advance our technology.

This is a bit contrived because altruism is just disguised selfishness. But I hope you get my point.

Left wing and right wing and conservative and liberal labels doesn't make any sense in the US to start with. The meaning of the two depends on who you are speaking about, and if you use modern uses of words or historical ones, and they change all the time. My suggestion is don't bother with the labels at all.

As for taxes, if people weren't paying two thirds of their income to taxes, they would easily be able to pay back loans and stuff for school.

Education + Transparency = Win

Originally Posted by Xei

To briefly pick up on the anarchy point: as far as I can tell, in a lawless country where people are at total liberty to do absolutely anything, there is nothing preventing people creating a 'state' (even if it's just something like a village with everybody in the village supporting a few dedicated 'policemen'); and as people will inevitably do that, I can see no way in which anarchy is a viable society. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

Well, like most things, it's a matter of economics. Having a market centered around the things people desire seems, to me at least, like a much better alternative to having a state muddled with its inefficiencies and inconsistencies providing the same services. This includes things that one would normally consider a core part of the job of the state, i.e. providing justice, security/protection, etc. It also includes peripheral things such as healthcare. The reason why I think this would be viable over a state is the success of the market in providing people with what they want. There are some areas that remain unsatisfied, but that is due to, in large part, restrictions by the state. In essence, people are served better in the market, which they themselves participate in on a daily basis, than they are under a state, who suffer from calculation and knowledge problems (basically, attempting to appease everybody all at once).

I hate to say something to the effect of "they would realize how shitty the state is and would adopt anarchism," as that is something I hear from Venus Project supporters ("everyone would realize how much better life is without money and they would abandon it!"), and I find it to be a lackluster argument, but I think it reasonably sums up my argument.

I would make the concession, however, that if people decide to form their own states and maintain it voluntarily (as in, people join, operate in, and leave voluntarily), I don't necessarily see a problem. Of course, if it's voluntary, by definition it doesn't qualify as a state, so the problem of people creating their own states doesn't apply in this situation.

I should point out that liberty was not my overruling principle. My overruling principles are the right to life, etcetera. The relevant (contrived) analogous situation is one in which an innocent person is trapped in a burning building. Standing watching is an affluent man with a mobile phone, who either can't be bothered to, or doesn't want to pay for, the cost of calling the fire brigade. The question is, is it moral to compel that man by force to make the call? I think the only human answer is 'yes'. There are some rights which take precedence over the right to an inviolate free will.

You said you've been listening to liberty-oriented philosophies lately and that they were appealing, and you proceeded to lay out a plan for a property-owning republic. That's why I figured liberty would be your overruling principle.

The example you give is certainly dire and I think in most situations people would be on the phone immediately calling for the police, if not in fear of innocent people getting hurt, then in fear of having the fire spreading and possibly destroying their own property. But the question is whether it would be moral to force him to make the phone call when he doesn't want to.

I could try to answer the question, but I don't think lifeboat situations such as these reasonably apply to questions of morality. It is abnormal to have someone refuse to call the fire department, and I think codes of ethics rely on how people normally act, not in extreme situations. But let's say it is right to force the man to call the fire department. We can't forget that he has still been aggressed against, and that he is in his rights to defend himself.

As to whether a state is pragmatic; can you suggest any other mechanisms, to give me something to work with? It almost seems to me that, ipso facto, any mechanism protecting liberty and rights is a state.

I lightly touched on this above and in the past, but my answer has typically been: the market.

It's things like this that make me feel like resorting to BLARG. Perhaps humans cannot force consistent meaning onto the universe.

What is the sphere of a state? Does it necessarily include everybody on Earth? I wasn't really picturing anything centralised.

Well, it must be a coercive monopoly over a given territorial area. It doesn't have to be centralized (depends on what you mean by centralized, though). It also doesn't have to include everybody on earth. It could include 33,000 people like Liechtenstein, or 300 million like the U.S. The sphere of a state is whatever services it provides, or its borders. Of, if you're like the U.S., it stretches as far as its influence .

But for now I'll stick to my guns. I'll say yes, he'd be taxed; see the above analogy. It's worth bearing in mind two things. Firstly, in my model, disregarding bureaucratic inefficiencies and the like, every penny taxed is going towards providing somebody's inalienable rights, and so the analogy is not wrong. If enough people are contributing via altruism, he won't even be taxed (also see my final few paragraphs about minimal expenses). Secondly, in my model, he can't 'declare himself out', because it works both ways: if this man were ill, or attacked, my state still has a duty to pay for his protection (although if he then refused medical treatment for instance, he is of course at liberty to do that, as we're effectively talking about suicide).

What gives your state the legitimacy to provide services for those rights?

Originally Posted by Alric

Left wing and right wing and conservative and liberal labels doesn't make any sense in the US to start with. The meaning of the two depends on who you are speaking about, and if you use modern uses of words or historical ones, and they change all the time. My suggestion is don't bother with the labels at all.

As for taxes, if people weren't paying two thirds of their income to taxes, they would easily be able to pay back loans and stuff for school.

Are you joking? It would be a measly amount compared to the tax on existing things.

Spread it out evenly over the population, or place the burden on a select group of people who choose to gain knowledge for the benefit of everybody. Which one is more logical?

If you get a good education and you are working a job that benefits everyone, you usually make more money. And since you would be paying hardly any taxes, you shouldn't have any real issue paying it back.

You have the workings of a good state in motion there, I believe, but it is far from a utopia.

For instance am I concerned about the government not subsidizing higher education. Knowledge is itself of value, yes, but only when it's shared. And only when it's shared with the right people. If the government fails to subsidize higher education, then those with means not and those with brains will get it. Obviously there will be an intersection of people with both brains and means, but you will get fewer good minds. It is however very hard to argue for it with your requirements. As the argument "it's for the common good" doesn't seem to carry much sway, I am at a loss. For I believe you are right in self-promotion being the only viable motivation.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Having a market centered around the things people desire seems, to me at least, like a much better alternative to having a state muddled with its inefficiencies and inconsistencies providing the same services. This includes things that one would normally consider a core part of the job of the state, i.e. providing justice, security/protection, etc. It also includes peripheral things such as healthcare.

There are a great number of reasons for why this wouldn't work. Among them, what would give a privatized police the right to operate? You might argue that they have power over those who "opt in", but obviously the people committing crimes won't. So what gives them the right to prosecute in your society? And a privatized police will be corrupt. If your governed by the market, you're governed by income. And what gives the best income is prosecuting the poor and leaving the rich be ... for a certain price.

I agree that a privatised police force and judicial system is totally unworkable. Yes, moral people want to pay for a moral police force, and competition would come into play here. But immoral people have a huge incentive for funding corrupt police forces who arrest or kill their enemies, enforce theft, et al. And who is going to hold this corrupt police force to rights exactly? Another police force? This isn't law and order, this is gang warfare.

Originally Posted by tommo

And you are saying everyone has to pay taxes. Why is this?

I don't think you can have read my initial post very diligently. I explicated the principles for this in detail. What are yours?

I am saying that people should pay for everyone's education because it improves society as a whole and helps us advance and have better lives. Education is obviously the key to everything we have now in this society, making people suffer for it is fucking insane.

You still aren't answering my question though. Are you saying it is moral to threaten somebody with forced imprisonment due to your belief that education is good?

I think the equating 'paying' with 'suffering' is kinda silly. It is your conviction that education is an inherent good, yet you won't pay for it; you consider your own funding of your own ideal to be evil. In a sense you are refusing to practice what you preach; moreover, you're forcing everybody else to practice what you preach at the point of a gun.

The problem is, people do not have anywhere else to go. Every university charges pretty much identical prices.
And there obviously wouldn't be any tax funded universities in your system.

Again you're not facing my point head on. Are you conceding that you do indeed believe that you have a personal hold on me, and that you can force me to not set up my university? This seems like an extreme encroachment upon my freedoms. You have no business telling me what enterprises I can or cannot initiate, and you have no business telling members of the public not to engage with my enterprise.

But of course you still gain, because everyone gains.
You gain by advancing your entire civilisation.
If you keep your idea under copyright and all that rubbish, people have to reinvent the wheel just to get another better product out.

So, I invest hundreds of thousands of pounds of my own money into creating a working idea... and you're saying that idea doesn't belong to me? You're saying it's yours? And you think, realistically, that people are still going to sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears for this?

It's just so obvious that selfishness does no good. Take Microsoft for example.
They owned basically the only OS for quite a while. Of course there are minority ones, but basically everybody used Windows.
If there was no copyright on it, and people were free to change it and use parts of their source code, there would be much better OS's much more quickly.

...and you think Windows would have ever been developed in the first place if absolutely anybody can legally copy it onto a CD and sell it to anybody else? Or give it away? Okay.

This is a bit contrived because altruism is just disguised selfishness. But I hope you get my point.

That seems a very cynical position. I'm pretty sure most philanthropists are doing what they do because they believe it's good, not because they'll get personal benefits.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You said you've been listening to liberty-oriented philosophies lately and that they were appealing, and you proceeded to lay out a plan for a property-owning republic. That's why I figured liberty would be your overruling principle.

The example you give is certainly dire and I think in most situations people would be on the phone immediately calling for the police, if not in fear of innocent people getting hurt, then in fear of having the fire spreading and possibly destroying their own property. But the question is whether it would be moral to force him to make the phone call when he doesn't want to.

I could try to answer the question, but I don't think lifeboat situations such as these reasonably apply to questions of morality. It is abnormal to have someone refuse to call the fire department, and I think codes of ethics rely on how people normally act, not in extreme situations. But let's say it is right to force the man to call the fire department. We can't forget that he has still been aggressed against, and that he is in his rights to defend himself.

I don't think the analogy is a misfire at all. All taxes in my state go to providing inalienable human rights. Refusing to incur minor costs or inconveniences is, then, well matched to my analogy. People experience serious hardships, even death, as a result of this inaction. I don't think it's abnormal at all that somebody might refuse to pay taxes; this is an issue of clear pertinence to the philosophy of the state. I don't think it is morally right for the man to violently defend himself against somebody trying to force him to make the call.

I just realised; it's kinda funny that I'm so concerned about whether this is moral or not, and almost giving up and just resorting to accepting current political systems, when current political systems are ten times more radical in this respect.

What gives your state the legitimacy to provide services for those rights?

I'm not sure entirely what you mean. The actions I delineated are held to be inherently moral based on the deductions from those basic principles. This is why it is an imperative to create such a state and enforce those services.

Originally Posted by khh

There are a great number of reasons for why this wouldn't work. Among them, what would give a privatized police the right to operate? You might argue that they have power over those who "opt in", but obviously the people committing crimes won't. So what gives them the right to prosecute in your society? And a privatized police will be corrupt. If your governed by the market, you're governed by income. And what gives the best income is prosecuting the poor and leaving the rich be ... for a certain price.

They would derive their "right," if it could be called that, from the fact that people demand protection from those who commit anti-social acts. If you're governed by the market, you are indeed governed by income. But it does not follow that you are only governed by income. It would be, I think, imperative for those running or participating in private security companies to maintain a good reputation among not only its customers, but society as a whole. Prosecuting the poor for the sake of payment from the rich would not be conducive in maintaining a good reputation. I also don't think such private police forces would operate the same way state police forces do now. There are already more private security guards and other private security systems (alarms, cameras, etc.) employed in the U.S. than there are state police officers/services. The difference between them is that they operate on a smaller scale: they don't patrol entire cities, they patrol specific areas, mostly around their area of employment, such as apartment complexes and businesses.

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree that a privatised police force and judicial system is totally unworkable. Yes, moral people want to pay for a moral police force, and competition would come into play here. But immoral people have a huge incentive for funding corrupt police forces who arrest or kill their enemies, enforce theft, et al. And who is going to hold this corrupt police force to rights exactly? Another police force? This isn't law and order, this is gang warfare.

While there is demand for protection, there may be demand for aggression as well, as you stated. However economics acts as a check on anti-social behavior like that. It is far more expensive to bear the cost of fighting a war when your income comes privately at the discretion of your customers, as opposed to fighting a war where the costs are socialized among an entire populace.

I don't think the analogy is a misfire at all. All taxes in my state go to providing inalienable human rights. Refusing to incur minor costs or inconveniences is, then, well matched to my analogy. People experience serious hardships, even death, as a result of this inaction. I don't think it's abnormal at all that somebody might refuse to pay taxes; this is an issue of clear pertinence to the philosophy of the state. I don't think it is morally right for the man to violently defend himself against somebody trying to force him to make the call.

I meant it's abnormal for someone to stand outside of a building, knowing that someone is stuck in there, and to not do anything. As I said, I think most people would be on the phone immediately in such a situation. Regarding the rest, see the end of my post.

I think this video is relevant if you want to understand my position:

I just realised; it's kinda funny that I'm so concerned about whether this is moral or not, and almost giving up and just resorting to accepting current political systems, when current political systems are ten times more radical in this respect.

Comes with the territory lol

I'm not sure entirely what you mean. The actions I delineated are held to be inherently moral based on the deductions from those basic principles. This is why it is an imperative to create such a state and enforce those services.

My point is, where do you draw your legitimacy from, meaning: who decided that the basic principles you've laid out are good? Was it you only, or did you have a vote among the populace?

You say that one of the principles your state rests on is that one may not encroach upon another person's free will. But then you say that providing for certain inalienable rights takes precedence. Is this not contradictory? Providing for (i.e. paying taxes for) those rights necessarily encroaches on another person's free will if they are not voluntarily paying into the system. This is especially true when you're forcing the man that doesn't wish to be part of the system to act as though he is part of it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

They would derive their "right," if it could be called that, from the fact that people demand protection from those who commit anti-social acts. If you're governed by the market, you are indeed governed by income. But it does not follow that you are only governed by income. It would be, I think, imperative for those running or participating in private security companies to maintain a good reputation among not only its customers, but society as a whole. Prosecuting the poor for the sake of payment from the rich would not be conducive in maintaining a good reputation. I also don't think such private police forces would operate the same way state police forces do now. There are already more private security guards and other private security systems (alarms, cameras, etc.) employed in the U.S. than there are state police officers/services. The difference between them is that they operate on a smaller scale: they don't patrol entire cities, they patrol specific areas, mostly around their area of employment, such as apartment complexes and businesses.

I find this passage highly indicative of the sort of convoluted thinking that needs to be done in order to support the worship of the "free market". The biggest difference between them is not of scale but of authority. No private security guard can throw me in jail. Period. No private security guard can come into my home. Period. No private security guard can force me to submit to a search. The only things that they can do is call the cops. Period.

While there is demand for protection, there may be demand for aggression as well, as you stated. However economics acts as a check on anti-social behavior like that. It is far more expensive to bear the cost of fighting a war when your income comes privately at the discretion of your customers, as opposed to fighting a war where the costs are socialized among an entire populace.

Again. How is it more expensive either way? Are bullets inherently more expensive when they purchased by the US goverment than by a private security force? It's cheapest to fund the war by stealing from the victims.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Again. How is it more expensive either way? Are bullets inherently more expensive when they purchased by the US goverment than by a private security force? It's cheapest to fund the war by stealing from the victims.

Oddly enough they probably are much more expensive when the government buys them. Especially large governments with large bureaucracies. When you buy the bullets you are not just paying for the bullets but all the related costs involved in getting the bullets, which government seems to often be inefficient in.

From a practical perspective, I agree. That's why I specified inherently. I suspect much more of the difference can be accounted for by directing money to friends in the arms industry and using inflated prices to pay for covert, illegal operations and the like.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I find this passage highly indicative of the sort of convoluted thinking that needs to be done in order to support the worship of the "free market". The biggest difference between them is not of scale but of authority. No private security guard can throw me in jail. Period. No private security guard can come into my home. Period. No private security guard can force me to submit to a search. The only things that they can do is call the cops. Period.

If someone is paying for a service, undoubtedly established by some sort of contract, do they not have the authority to do things laid out in the contract? Of course this limits them to do things only on the property delineated in the contract. If someone is going around doing anti-social acts like stealing and is not caught immediately (something I think would be out of the ordinary with a private system), I would think cooperation would come into play, possibly among the populace or other security agencies to be on the look out for a roaming criminal. Should that person be caught, the courts would come into play. Some form of restitution would be in order. I also think ostracism would be a big factor for uncooperative, anti-social people.

Again. How is it more expensive either way? Are bullets inherently more expensive when they purchased by the US goverment than by a private security force? It's cheapest to fund the war by stealing from the victims.

The point is that the company must bear their own costs. They cannot spread out the expenses among everyone, only the people paying for their services. They have to take in mind the opinions of their consumer base. If they start fighting a war the consumers don't want, they lose business. Thus, it becomes more costly. Suddenly they have to fight a war with a diminishing base of income. This is not so with the state. They can merely loot the citizenry regardless of their will.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

While there is demand for protection, there may be demand for aggression as well, as you stated. However economics acts as a check on anti-social behavior like that. It is far more expensive to bear the cost of fighting a war when your income comes privately at the discretion of your customers, as opposed to fighting a war where the costs are socialized among an entire populace.

I totally reject this argument. People are corrupt for their own profit; it is easy to picture how such a war would be self-funding. If your corrupt police force is into seizing property for instance.

I meant it's abnormal for someone to stand outside of a building, knowing that someone is stuck in there, and to not do anything. As I said, I think most people would be on the phone immediately in such a situation. Regarding the rest, see the end of my post.

Interestingly this exactly reflects the situation with the non-aggression principle. People feel okay with force arbitrated by the state, but not personally imposing force themselves. In the same way, people who would never stand idly by as somebody burned to death in a building next to them, would be okay with hoarding money whilst distant people starve. I don't think it's tenable of you to keep saying my analogy doesn't work: the thing it is analogous to is widely observed. I just brought it to a personal level in exactly the same way that your video did.

My point is, where do you draw your legitimacy from, meaning: who decided that the basic principles you've laid out are good? Was it you only, or did you have a vote among the populace?

I decided by my own rational decision. That's where the legitimacy comes from. If a vote of the populace rejects them, I will ignore them (unless they give rational arguments against me), just as the US government should have ignored the popular support for slavery. I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights.

You say that one of the principles your state rests on is that one may not encroach upon another person's free will. But then you say that providing for certain inalienable rights takes precedence. Is this not contradictory?

...by the definition of precedence, no.

Can't really discuss something when you're constantly inferring shit I didn't say.
Have fun!

Good ol' inference.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If someone is paying for a service, undoubtedly established by some sort of contract, do they not have the authority to do things laid out in the contract? Of course this limits them to do things only on the property delineated in the contract.

The point is that without a body that inherently governs all (a state), every man can only give a policeforce authority over themselves. No others.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If someone is paying for a service, undoubtedly established by some sort of contract, do they not have the authority to do things laid out in the contract? Of course this limits them to do things only on the property delineated in the contract. If someone is going around doing anti-social acts like stealing and is not caught immediately (something I think would be out of the ordinary with a private system), I would think cooperation would come into play, possibly among the populace or other security agencies to be on the look out for a roaming criminal. Should that person be caught, the courts would come into play. Some form of restitution would be in order. I also think ostracism would be a big factor for uncooperative, anti-social people.

You've entirely dodged my point by invoking the "courts". What courts? Who do they have authority over?

The point is that the company must bear their own costs. They cannot spread out the expenses among everyone, only the people paying for their services. They have to take in mind the opinions of their consumer base. If they start fighting a war the consumers don't want, they lose business. Thus, it becomes more costly. Suddenly they have to fight a war with a diminishing base of income. This is not so with the state. They can merely loot the citizenry regardless of their will.

Again, you've dodged. What about rolling up on somebodies house to arrest them for some crime and seizing all of their valuables to fund rolling up on the next persons house? The people that funded the initial expedition of course get a cut of the profits and are very satisfied customers. Consider the spaniards rolling through the new world to punish them for not being christians. They made an incredible amount of profit in precious metals.

I sometimes wonder if you've ever read a book on history ...

Xei, it seems like you've made a thread where you began by asking some legitimate philosophical questions under the guise of re-evaluating your political beliefs, only to miraculously end up reconfirming the very beliefs you had to begin with. How convenient.

Let me ask you a question that I don't care to hear the answer to, but may help you grow personally: Are you capable of being persuaded by reason, regardless of who says it? Can you read another person's words on an internet forum (like this one) and have your worldview changed by them? Or is this forum just a way for you to circle jerk with your like-minded buddies? I can tell you that for someone who claims to be open-minded, you seem rather hostile to new and different ideas.